Go is Google's language, not ours • Hacker News Board

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#501

Post by adamc » Wed, May 22, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

emn13 wrote: post #383

bunderbunder wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Java has only things that were proved to work in other languages. But they still somehow keep finding ways to make them not work so well when implemented in Java. C# may move faster, but its design team is also much more methodical about ensuring that new features have good ergonomics. In Java, I tend to feel surrounded by hacks that were hastily slapped on in an effort to keep up with C# and, increasingly, Kotlin.

Hmm, I do a lot of C# programming, including very language-y low-level stuff, and I'm not sure I completely agree. I appreciate that by moving faster they get more stuff into more hands faster, but they definitely have a lot of hackish solutions with poor ergnomics outside of the narrow scope they were originally intended for. If you will: the language features have a clear purpose but a general implementation; and o…

Uprated because you gave lots of specific examples. Too many conversations get vague fast.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#502

Post by TACIXAT » Wed, May 22, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

doesnt_know wrote: post #162

I'm going to risk being labeled an ~incompetent dev~ or whatever but learning golang was seriously a breath of fresh air compared to literally any language I have ever tried to grok before. Everything felt like it was there on purpose. It always seemed like there was a "proper" way to achieve something. Being told to use this opinionated formatter was like removing a 40kg bag after a bush walk. You never have to worr…

Strongly agree. Go feels great to write. I hesitate when designing a new project in C++ because I need to figure out the right / clever way to implement something. Go feels a lot more straight forward where I can just write it in the one way it's designed to allow. It gets me writing code a lot faster than other languages.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#503

Post by pron » Wed, May 22, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

bunderbunder wrote: post #335

akerro wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>everyone's pet feature Isn't that C#? Java is very slow at adding new features, Java has only things that were proved to work in other languages.

> Java has only things that were proved to work in other languages. But they still somehow keep finding ways to make them not work so well when implemented in Java. C# may move faster, but its design team is also much more methodical about ensuring that new features have good ergonomics. In Java, I tend to feel surrounded by hacks that were hastily slapped on in an effort to keep up with C# and, increasingly, Kotlin.

C# has made some serious mistakes: reified generics (which has basically destroyed simple language interop on the CLR and makes it an unattractive target for language implementors), and recently, async/await. Both of these help in some ways, but have costs that are higher than the benefit and much better alternatives.

Java is not trying to "keep up." It is intentionally slow-moving and conservative (this design goal was set by James Gosling when Java was first created), and only adds features once they have been proven in other languages for a while.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#504

Post by nfriedly » Wed, May 22, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #288

playing_colours wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, that I saw a similar pattern like "at first I complained, but as time went on I found some benefits" quite a lot. It can be that your learn a language better, became more comfortable with the way it must be used: say, stopped writing code in Elixir the way your used to write in Python. But the other thing is that it's in our human nature that we tend to look for something positive in bad situations we ex…

My enjoyment using any given language always tends to grow as I get more productive with it, even if I have a more general dislike for the language itself. Making computers do things is fun (usually)! The programming language is (almost) immaterial - depending on the task at hand of course. Despite myself, I've even found myself enjoying JS in the few times I had no choice to avoid it. shudder

That part about JS is pretty much the story of my career - I started out completely hating JS, was forced to use it enough to get more familiar with it, and eventually eventually started enjoying it to the point that it's now the primary language I write.

(I still hate it occasionally, but there's a lot more joy these days.)

The initial turning point was probably around the first release of jQuery...

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#505

Post by naikrovek » Wed, May 22, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

asark wrote: post #347

naikrovek wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A slice isn't an array. A slice is a view into an array. You don't look through a window in your house into the backyard, and plant a tree in the backyard by fiddling with the window. It's the same with arrays and slices in Go. If you want to insert an item into a slice, insert it into the array (by copying to a new array and adding your new element to it while copying), then creating a new slice which includes your…

> edit: (adding for clarity) In a lot of programming languages, whether they use slices or not, arrays are of a fixed size and must be copied to a new array if you want to add elements. Some languages have some syntax that makes it feel like you are modifying an array in-place, while doing the copy to a new array behind the scenes. It's that or some magic with larger-than-needed arrays that automatically grow by a bu…

Yep, you're right, that's the transparently resizeable array thing, and it's exactly how Java's ArrayList class gives the feel of a resizeable array while it actually manages fixed-size backing arrays for you. That's why I linked the source to that class. :)

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#506

Post by PrototypeNM1 » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:00 PM UTC

ehsankia wrote: post #64

pa7ch wrote: post #17

Many like Go because it is an opinionated language. I'm not sure that a 'community' run language will create something like that because there are too many opinions. Many claim to represent the community, but not the community that doesn't share their opinion. Without clear leaders I fear technical direction and taste will be about politics which seems more uncertain/risky. I like that there is a tight cohesive group…

Is there any example of a successful large open source project that's truly lead by the community, and not a handful of people that decide what goes in and what doesn't? What would such a model even look like?

I think the key component of such a model is a clearly communicated method where the community can participate in the project direction, and evidence that the method is being respected. It's been brought up in this thread but Rust's governance/RFC process comes to mind. https://www.rust-lang.org/governance

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#507

Post by teddyh » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:08 PM UTC

doesnt_know wrote: post #162

I'm going to risk being labeled an ~incompetent dev~ or whatever but learning golang was seriously a breath of fresh air compared to literally any language I have ever tried to grok before. Everything felt like it was there on purpose. It always seemed like there was a "proper" way to achieve something. Being told to use this opinionated formatter was like removing a 40kg bag after a bush walk. You never have to worr…

> learning golang was seriously a breath of fresh air

This is completely irrelevant to the topic. Go, as currently implemented, could be the bee’s knees for the whole world for all I know; it’s not relevant to the discussion. To sidestep like you did and pretend that this is some form of criticism of Go itself is disingenuous hijacking of the discussion thread.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#508

Post by teddyh » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

IRLIamOffline wrote: post #194

The post makes it sound as if Go being Google's language (not the community's) is a bad thing. I don't see where this sentiment is coming from as the strong opinions enforced by Go core devs is probably one of the defining features of Go. As with many open source projects under benevolent dictatorship, this can result in streamlined and consistent features with long-term success.

Are you by any chance also a royalist?

To quote the IETF: “We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code.”

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#509

Post by darkpuma » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

logicprog wrote: post #449

baby wrote: post #418

Security consultant here. I have audited many codebases in many languages. Go is by far the easiest language to audit: it always looks the same, it's not too verbose, there are no generics or OOP. Coincidentally it's always the most secure as well. My take on this is that it is easier to see logic problems because it is easier to read, understand and reason about. On top of that the standard library does so much for…

I'm curious, how will they end Go itself? My understanding is that they always planned to have generics, they just didn't make 1.0 and now the Go community has sort of adopted the lack of them like a badge of honor. Also, I have no expertise in your field so forgive me if this is a stupid question but wouldn't generics be easier to check over since they allow there to be only one implementation of something for all t…

> "My understanding is that they always planned to have generics, they just didn't make 1.0 and now the Go community has sort of adopted the lack of them like a badge of honor."

As soon as Go adopts generics the community will turn on a dime and pretend they always loved generics (and perhaps even invented them.) That's how these sort of things typically play out. See also, copy/paste on iphones. When only android had it, copy/paste was a misfeature for idiots. When iOS implemented it, copy/paste became the best thing since sliced bread.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#510

Post by ChuckMcM » Wed, May 22, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

This is an important point that people need to keep in mind. From a psychological perspective it is also a little bit evil in that it "feels" like a community and people participate like its a community, but the reality is that it isn't a community at all in the communal action sense.

Essentially Google gets "free" developer time as people work on problems and pitch in possible solutions. Google can influence what is worked on by whining about things, and they are free to take or discard the offerings.

This isn't particularly surprising to me as it feels very similar to the way I felt when working there. Which is that people in engineering worked on projects that they were passionate about, but whether or not those projects got support, or were shipped, or released into products. That stuff was all done "elsewhere" by some group of people who were generally known, but not really part of the day to day. I tended to think cynically of them as 'class A' shareholders, or 'class B' shareholders[1].

I don't think there is anything wrong with managing a program this way, I do however think they go out of their way to create a community illusion to foster more participation. That tells me that if they were up front about things, they feel people might not be as eager to participate. To the extent that they are deceptive in their communications, that I would consider wrong.

[1] Class B shareholders get to vote on shareholder issues, but there is always more voting power in the class A shares so that the class A folks can veto or reject any notion they dislike, no matter how popular with the class B folks.